Column on Taxation, Again

Taxation Again
Tibor R. Machan
Instead of all the mud slinging between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton
and Barack Hussein Obama, wouldn’t it be refreshing to have them engage in
some serious political discussion? Since April 15 is nearly upon us, many
American citizens might appreciate some in-depth exploration of the nature
of taxation. The federal income tax, in particular, would deserve
thoughtful examination. Senator John McCain could also enter the fray, me
Why don’t these politicians, who are aspiring to the U. S. presidency–the
presidency of a supposedly free country–spend a bit of their energy and
time discussing with voters how a robust system of confiscatory taxation
can be reconciled with the basic principles of the country laid out in the
Declaration of Independence. In this revolutionary statement of a radical
political philosophy–wherein we learn that human beings are equal in
having unalienable rights to, among others, their lives, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness–it seems pretty clear that a government’s
confiscation of one’s resources would amount to a violation of several of
these rights.
Take life, for example. What does one’s life consist of? Much of it is
spent, of course, trying to earn a living so as to support one’s various
needs and wants, including the housing, feeding, clothing, and education
of one’s offspring. Having an unalienable right to one’s life means,
unless I am utterly amiss in my grasp of the English language and of how
the American founders used it, that one may not lose one’s life and its
fruits to other people unless one freely gives them away. Confiscatory
taxation is not a case of having one’s resources contributed freely, not
by even the most post-modern interpretation of the words in play.
Then again, take liberty. What is this liberty? It has to do with one’s
not having anyone else, including government, dictate to one what one will
do, how one will act, what course of conduct one will undertake. None,
since the right to liberty, too, is unalienable, that is to say incapable
of being lost unless one’s humanity has vanished somehow. Confiscatory
taxation once again cannot be made consistent with the principle that one
has this unalienable right to one’s liberty for such taxation coerces one
to hand over a goodly part of one’s earnings to people one hasn’t freely
chosen to receive them. (And let’s leave aside the sophistry of claiming
that taxation is ultimately voluntary or that majority vote may void one’s
unalienable rights!)
As to the pursuit of happiness, that too is supposed to be one’s
unalienable right, yet when some get the legal power to force one to
devote resources to goals one has not chosen to pursue, that right, too,
is very evidently violated.
It bears remembering, also, that these are just a few among the “certain
unalienable rights.” Indeed, human beings have unalienable rights to do
anything that’s peaceful, that does not violate someone else’s rights.
Even the Bill of Rights attests to this, in its inclusion of the Ninth
Amendment among the principles it lists. It clearly refers to rights we
all have that are not enumerated in the Constitution. So, to use some
simple examples, we all have the right to laugh, sing, have parties in our
back yards, and so forth, even though these rights are no listed–since
they would take volumes to list–in the Constitution.
Yes, reference is made in the Constitution to taxation but that is an
unfortunate mistake, inconsistency actually, since taxation is not part of
a free country properly understood, any more than serfdom is, or
involuntary servitude. One might wonder, well then how are the proper
functions of government to be funded, if not by means of the extortionist
scheme of taxation? Actually, there can be valid alternatives to taxation,
ones no involving coercion, confiscation, extortion, although these are
not studied now because so many people accept taxation is legitimate. That
used to be the case with slavery, too, for centuries–alternatives to it
were not studied in ancient Egypt and Greece or elsewhere because
influential people complacently accepted the practice. As they now accept
taxation. But that does not make it right!
As a very brief hint, the legal services governments provide can be funded
by a contract fee–anyone who enters into a contract would need to pay a
fee so it would gain legal backing. Given the enormous popularity of
freely entered into contracts, and given that one need not make use of
them if one can get by with a handshake, the method would provide ample
resources to fund government’s proper functions.
Wouldn’t it be just swell if those pursuing the presidency of a supposedly
free country would raise issues like this one? No, instead they dwell on
whether one’s crazy minister speaks for one in matters of race or whether
one has actually encounter sniper fire when landing in some foreign land
(where one probably shouldn’t have landed in the first place)?
It is shameful how the right topics are evaded and trivial ones
substituted during this and most other political campaigns.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s